Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Balbir Singh has filed this criminal writ petition seeking direction for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that his son has been illegally detained by the respondents and so should be got recovered. Noticing the fact that Rajinder Singh @ Hunny, 12 years old son of the petitioner, was alleged to have been kidnapped by respondents No.5 to 9, notice of motion was issued to the respondents. The prayer made by the petitioner for appointing a Warrant Officer to search the premises of respondents No.5 to 9 was also granted. The Warrant Officer was directed to search not only the residential premises of respondents No.5 to 9, but any other place indicated by the petitioner with further direction to submit his report on or before the date fixed.

The facts, which led to issuance of the above directions, as narrated in the petition are that 35 persons had attacked Satnam Singh, brother of the petitioner while he was present in his house in street No.1, Mohalla Ambedkar Nagar, 33 road, Giaspur, Ludhiana. As per the allegations, the brother and father of the petitioner were caused injuries with sharp edged weapon and during this attack, the accused persons had kidnapped the son of the petitioner, aged 12 years, which led to filing of the present petition. It is further disclosed that FIR No.158 dated 20.5.2007 was lodged in this regard under various sections of the IPC at Police Station, Focal Point Ludhiana.

Pursuant to the directions issued by the court, Warrant Officer went and searched the residential as well as commercial- cum-residential premises of respondents No.5 to 7 and 9. He, however, could not find detenu Rajinder Singh @ Hunny son of the petitioner at any of the said places. The petitioner could not locate the address of respondent No.8 and as such search was not carried out at the residential premises of the said respondent. When the case was taken up for hearing on 5.6.2007, learned State counsel prayed for time to produce the child in the court. However, on the adjourned date, i.e., 3.7.2007 the State counsel, on instructions, submitted before the court that the police was unable to produce the child as the child was stated to be in the custody of the petitioner. This statement was made by the State counsel on the basis of statements of ten persons recorded by the police, who claimed that they had seen the child in custody of the petitioner after the alleged date of abduction. Still a direction was issued to the police to trace out the child. Respondents were also directed to file reply to the petition.

A separate reply in the form of an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and 5. Respondent No. 6 has also filed a separate reply. Supplementary reply in the form of an affidavit of SP, City-II, Ludhiana on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 was filed on 30.7.2007. Civil Misc.Petition No.422 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner for placing on record documents, Annexures P-2 to P-14 and the case was adjourned to 5.9.2007.

In the reply filed by the official respondents, it is stated that the present petition is a false, frivolous and fictitious one, which should be dismissed with heavy exemplary costs. As per reply, 15 FIR have been registered against petitioner Balbir Singh and 11 writ petitions of similar nature filed by either the petitioner or his brother had earlier been dismissed by this Court. It is further mentioned that petitioner alongwith his brother Satnam Singh is accused in a cross- version of FIR No.158 dated 20.5.2007, which was recorded at his instance. Going into the background of the case, it is disclosed that Satnam Singh complainant in FIR No.158 is a Kabaria and has taken a house on mortgage for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-about 1-1/2 years prior to May, 2007 from one Swami Nath. The possession of this house was passed by Swami Nath to Satnam Singh in writing. Swami Nath was pressing the complainant to vacate this house from the last six months as the amount, which was taken, was a rent for the same. A panchayat of Mohalla was also convened a number of times to resolve this issue. Swami Nath had also moved an application to Police Post, Sherpur for getting this house vacated. On 20.5.2007 Swami Nath had gone to the house accompanied by some other persons leading to some fight, which led to filing of a case and cross-version. While recording this FIR, Satnam Singh never mentioned that 12 years old son of the petitioner was kidnapped during this incident. In this background, the allegations made in the petition about the kidnapping of the son of the petitioner have been denied by official respondents. This fact is stated to be an afterthought.

The official respondents have also disclosed that in the course of investigation, respondent No.5 has recorded the statements of Krishan Lal, Vinay Singh, Ram Bhan, Chhotey Lal, Ajit Partap Singh, Mahesh Kumar, Ramesh Chand Yadav, Raj Ashok Pal, Naresh Sharma and others, who have disclosed that petitioner has taken his son in car. Another fact of significant, which has been disclosed in the reply, is that petitioner is in the habit of making false complaints and filing false writ petitions before this Court. It is then disclosed that present petitioner had filed CWP No.1101 of 2003, which was also dismissed. Writ Petition No.1273 of 2004 filed by the petitioner is stated to have been dismissed on 17.3.2005, whereas another CWP No.476 of 2005 was dismissed on 31.1.2006. The petitioner still filed another Writ Petition No.452 of 2004, which was dismissed on 31.8.2004 and Writ Petition Nos.787 of 2004, 157 of 2004, 408 of 2004, 144 of 2005 and 682 of 2007, which have been dismissed on 20.8.2004, 17.3.2004 etc. It is further mentioned that petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition Nos.292 and 695 of 1999, which were dismissed by this Court on 22.10.1999 and 19.7.1999, respectively.

Petitioner Balbir Singh has also been described as a person with dubious character and a man of criminal background. Following FIRs have been registered against the petitioner under the offences mentioned against each:

FIR No.56 dated 1.4.2005, u/s 379 IPC, PS Machhiwara, FIR No.279 dated 7.12.1999, under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 34 IPC, PS Focal Point, Ludhiana, FIR No.159 dated 19.4.2003, under Sections 457, 380 IPC, PS Focal Point, Ludhiana, FIR No.238 dated 3.7.2003, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S.Focal Point Ludhiana, FIR No.225 dated 9.11.1993, under Sections 332, 353, 506, 186 IPC, PS Division No.6, Ludhiana, FIR No.39 dated 13.12.1999, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS Division No.5, Ludhiana, FIR No.143 dated 22.5.1999, under Sections 452, 506, 323, 34 IPC, PS Division No.6, Ludhiana, FIR No.15 dated 15.6.2001, u/s 18 NDPS Act, PS Division No.6, Ludhiana, FIR No.450 dated 2.11.2001, u/s 354 IPC, PS Division No.6 Ludhiana, FIR No.196 dated 6.7.2001, u/s 420 IPC, PS Division No.6, Ludhiana, FIR No.179 dated 7.12.2004, under Sections 407, 506 IPC, PS Gobindgarh, FIR No.169 dated 4.6.2007, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, PS Focal Point, Ludhiana, FIR No.134 dated 1.5.2007, under Sections 323, 341 IPC, PS Focal Point Ludhiana, FIR No.165/01, u/s 18, 61, 85 NDPS Act, PS Division No.6, Ludhiana, FIR No.45/99, under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, PS Division No.5, Ludhiana, FIR No.299/99, under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 341 IPC, PS Division No.5 Ludhiana, FIR No.198/6, under Sections 420, 494 IPC, PS Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, FIR No.246/99, under Sections 302 IPC, PS Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

Replying to the allegations made by the petitioner that he had complained to the DSP, Industrial Area, Ludhiana, the respondents have mentioned that enquiry was marked to respondent No.5 on 23.5.2007, who has recorded the evidence of various persons named in the reply. Respondent No.5 is stated to have recorded the statements of Hardeep Singh, Bikkar Singh, Jaspal Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Harish Chander, Amandeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Daljeet Singh, Jaswinder Singh son of Santokh Singh, Jaswinder Singh son of Amar Singh, all residents of Giaspura, Ludhiana and they all have stated that they had seen Rajinder Singh alias Hunny, son of the petitioner, in the company of the petitioner. It is accordingly stated that allegation of kidnapping of the son of the petitioner is false. These witnesses have also seen the son of the petitioner present with him. The details of the allegations made by the petitioner in these writ petitions and the dates of dismissal thereof have been mentioned in the reply. Prayer accordingly has been made that this writ petition being false and frivolous needs to be dismissed. Similar stand has been taken by respondent No.6 in his reply filed before this Court.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

Mr. P.S. Khurana, appearing for petitioner remained contend by stating that son of the petitioner has been kidnapped and has not been recovered so far and as such prayed for issuance of appropriate directions by this Court in regard. On the other hand, State counsel and the counsel representing private respondents vehemently submit that the petitioner is in the habit of filing false complaints making similar allegations as can be seen from the contents of the reply. According to them, the present petition is also false and frivolous one and so the same deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

I have deeply considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The petitioner has not filed any response to the averments made in the reply, which is noted above in detail. The fact that petitioner has filed so many petitions before this Court, thus, has not been denied. It is also not disputed that all these writ petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court on different dates. The fact that petitioner is involved in so many FIRs is not again in dispute. Rather the petitioner has moved a misc.petition for placing on record documents, Annexures P-2 to P-14, which are either the copies of the FIR or the orders granting bail to him. Though the petitioner had taken pain to mention all these facts, but has not taken any action to substantiate his plea of kidnapping of his son by the private respondents. The fact that allegation of kidnapping was not made in the FIR lodged by the brother of the petitioner cannot be easily ignored. The police, on its part, appears to have conducted investigation when complaint was lodged in regard to this kidnapping. Considering the nature of allegations made by the petitioner, initially this Court acted promptly by appointing a Warrant Officer to ensure that his son could be recovered. The son of the petitioner was not found. Still the police was directed to produce the child before the court, which would have gone to show if the allegations made were true or false. Despite best efforts, the police has not been able to trace the child. Rather they have referred to the statements of number of witnesses, who have seen the son of the petitioner present with him to show that the allegations made are false.

Considering the nature of material placed on record of this case, the allegations made by the petitioner that his son is in illegal custody of respondents No.5 to 9 is not substantiated in any manner. Accordingly, no writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the alleged detenu can be issued. Since the allegation of kidnapping is being made against private respondents and the case has been registered at the instance of the petitioner, the petitioner can pursue his remedy under law. The petitioner could not show that his son is in custody of respondents No.5 to 9. The present petition, however, is dismissed.